1. Notice on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.
2. Heard Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 through video conferencing.
3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:-
"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the part of order dated 17.03.2021 passed by opposite party No.2 in Appeal No. D-046/2021 (Pappu Vs. State of U.P. & others) U/s 13(3) of Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, so far as it relates only rejecting the interim relief application, and rest part of the order is unchallenged, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.
2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to implement the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the opposite party No.3 i.e. Up Ziladhikari Biswan, District Sitapur contained as Annexure No.4.
3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party No.2 to decide the Appeal No.D-046/2021 (Pappu Vs. State of U.P.) U/S 13 (3) of Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016."
4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a license holder of a fair price shop and without getting a proper inquiry done, the license of the petitioner was cancelled and being aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has preferred the aforesaid appeal which is pending before the opposite party no. 2.
5. It has further been submitted that an application for interim relief was moved along with the memo of appeal seeking stay of cancellation order. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is now well settled that if an order is assailed in Appeal and the impugned order has evil/civil consequences, then as per judicial proprietary, it is appropriate that while admitting the appeal, the operation of the impugned order must be stayed.
6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Mool Chandra Yadav Vs. Raja Buland Sugar Co. Limited Rampur and others, reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to an order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petiton No. 19772 (MS) of 2020 (Lekhram Vs. State of U.P. and Others), a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 5 and it has been prayed that the petitioner being similarly situated is entitled to the same protection.
8. The learned Standing Counsel while opposing the aforesaid petition could not dispute the aforesaid legal proposition.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances and the fact that since the aforesaid appeal of the petitioner is already pending before the opposite party no. 2, no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the aforesaid appeal pending, accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the opposite party no. 2 to consider, hear and finally decide the pending appeal of the petitioner most expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties preferably within a period of 4 months from the date a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the Allahabad High Court is produced before the authority concerned.
10. Till four months or till disposal of the petitioner's appeal, whichever is earlier, the operation of the order dated 27.11.2020 shall remain stayed.
11. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.5.2021 Mustaqeem